Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * - - - 3 votes

Trayvon...A lesson for all Americans


  • Please log in to reply
163 replies to this topic

#16    Bama13

Bama13

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,701 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just Southeast of God's country

Posted 15 July 2013 - 07:21 PM

View PostHeru, on 15 July 2013 - 07:16 PM, said:

Yes there was a reason for him to punch him.   He was Fn following him.  Why would you run inside your home so the stalker knows where you live. Different cultures different ways of looking at things.

If you see a while guy at night following you  hes either a rapist or a serial killer.  Why do you think if someones eaten or a kid is kidnapped the profile is always a white guy.

White people see black people at night as thugs, well we see white people as serial killers or pedophiles.  

You got problems bro.

" Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything —you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him" - Robert Heinlein

#17    Ashotep

Ashotep

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,451 posts
  • Joined:10 May 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

  • Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway-John Wayne

Posted 15 July 2013 - 07:25 PM

View PostHeru, on 15 July 2013 - 07:16 PM, said:

Yes there was a reason for him to punch him.   He was Fn following him.  Why would you run inside your home so the stalker knows where you live. Different cultures different ways of looking at things.

If you see a while guy at night following you  hes either a rapist or a serial killer.  Why do you think if someones eaten or a kid is kidnapped the profile is always a white guy.

White people see black people at night as thugs, well we see white people as serial killers or pedophiles.  Next time I see a white guy around some kids im going to follow him and if he confronts me im shooting him.... lol ya right they would arrest my @55 right there instead of waiting months till the media makes a big stink about it before its investigated.

Everyone always talks about Martin and his violent nature and his drug habits.  Yet I see no one every brings up Z's drug usage and his many troubles with violence. But its okay his dad was a judge.  And yet cause of all the bs racial politics in this case no one ever bother to look at the facts.  

I realy wish it didnt turn into a white on black bs. If they were the same color I think it would have been handled differently.
If they had been the same color I don't think there would of been an arrest to begin with.  Now even after a trial there are those that want the juries verdict looked into which is stupid.


#18    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,609 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Location:Currently entering

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.

Posted 15 July 2013 - 07:39 PM

View PostBama13, on 15 July 2013 - 06:31 PM, said:

Stalking is against the law. However in Florida stalking is defined as: "Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking"

Tthe question is did Z's actions quailify as stalking? Was it willful? I believe it was. Was it malicious? I don't know, I mean how do you follow someone maliciously? Did he do it repeatedly? I don't think so, at least I haven't seen or heard any references to a previous occurance. I'm of the opinion that Z was not guilty of stalking according to Florida law, but then I'm not a lawyer.

Perhaps no stalking but harassment of Trayon by Zimmeran can be found in the same Chapter 784 statute:

Quote

(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.

(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests.

[c] “Credible threat” means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section.

http://www.leg.state...s/0784.048.html

Edited by The world needs you, 15 July 2013 - 07:49 PM.


#19    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,609 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Location:Currently entering

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.

Posted 15 July 2013 - 07:47 PM

Not even the whole of the law was allowed to be heard by the jury. They were never told that stand your ground does not apply if the defendant is the one who was the "initial aggressor" and from the looks of it a case could have been made against Zimmerman for harassment.

Quote

Even Florida's broad self-defense statutory scheme follows traditional self-defense limitations by prohibiting "initial aggressors" from using force provoked by their own conduct. A defendant in Florida cannot claim self-defense if he "initially provokes the use of force" against himself, unless he either withdraws from the conflict and conveys the withdrawal to the other party (the legal equivalent of "saying 'uncle'") or uses reasonable escape options to avoid death or great bodily harm (in other words, the initial aggressor has no right to stand his ground; he must retreat).

*snip*

The state attempted to rebut the defense's argument by noting the defense's request for a separate instruction regarding the legality of following a person. Judge Nelson responded, "We're not there yet," then quickly ruled without elaboration: "The defense does not want to give [the initial aggressor exception]; the state does. The court is not going to give it."

The court is not going to give it.

That may have been the moment when Zimmerman got acquitted. The end result was that jurors were told only about the parts of Florida self-defense law that benefited the defendant, without knowing anything about the most relevant potential limitation.

*snip*

A properly instructed jury should have heard the complete law of self-defense in Florida, not just the portions that helped Zimmerman. Had the jury been instructed about the initial aggressor exception, it might have concluded that Zimmerman's following of Martin, though itself not criminal, was reasonably apprehended by Martin as a "threat of force." Put another way, the jury might have concluded that Martin was the one acting in self-defense during the physical confrontation that preceded the gunshot, making Zimmerman the aggressor.

http://www.huffingto..._b_3596685.html


#20    keithisco

keithisco

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,051 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rincon de Loix, Benidorm

Posted 15 July 2013 - 07:48 PM

View PostThe world needs you, on 15 July 2013 - 07:39 PM, said:

Perhaps no stalking but harassment of Trayon by Zimmeran can be found in the same Chapter 784 statute:



http://www.leg.state...s/0784.048.html


“Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose"

And this is where you are wrong, there was legitimate purpose because he was a Neighbourhood Watch officer, he had been beaten by this youth, so had every reason to believe that he was up to no good. White / Black doesnt even come into it. An angry 17 yr old old is as dangerous as anyone.

Another question: why are all the photographs of Trayvon from when he was 12 yrs old? Sympathy would be my guess!!


#21    Wickian

Wickian

    Doppelganger

  • Member
  • 3,899 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • Save it for Queen Doppelpoppellus!

Posted 15 July 2013 - 07:51 PM

View PostHeru, on 15 July 2013 - 07:16 PM, said:

Yes there was a reason for him to punch him.   He was Fn following him.  Why would you run inside your home so the stalker knows where you live. Different cultures different ways of looking at things.

If you see a while guy at night following you  hes either a rapist or a serial killer.  Why do you think if someones eaten or a kid is kidnapped the profile is always a white guy.

White people see black people at night as thugs, well we see white people as serial killers or pedophiles.  Next time I see a white guy around some kids im going to follow him and if he confronts me im shooting him.... lol ya right they would arrest my @55 right there instead of waiting months till the media makes a big stink about it before its investigated.

Everyone always talks about Martin and his violent nature and his drug habits.  Yet I see no one every brings up Z's drug usage and his many troubles with violence. But its okay his dad was a judge.  And yet cause of all the bs racial politics in this case no one ever bother to look at the facts.  

I realy wish it didnt turn into a white on black bs. If they were the same color I think it would have been handled differently.

You do know Zimmerman isn't white right?


#22    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,609 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Location:Currently entering

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.

Posted 15 July 2013 - 07:54 PM

View Postkeithisco, on 15 July 2013 - 07:48 PM, said:

“Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose"

And this is where you are wrong, there was legitimate purpose because he was a Neighbourhood Watch officer, he had been beaten by this youth, so had every reason to believe that he was up to no good. White / Black doesnt even come into it. An angry 17 yr old old is as dangerous as anyone.

Another question: why are all the photographs of Trayvon from when he was 12 yrs old? Sympathy would be my guess!!

A misunderstanding is occurring here.

As the law could have been applied: If Trayvon was the one being harassed by Zimmerman following him, if Trayvon felt fear for his safety over it, and if Zimmerman had no legitimate reason to follow Trayvon, then it was Trayvon who was being harassed and  if he had in fact punched Zimmerman over all that, it could have been Trayvon who was defending himself.

"No legitimate reason" in this instance applies to Zimmerman not having a legitimate reason to follow Trayvon. Trayvon would have been within his right to defend himself and Zimmerman's accusation that he was punched first would have had no grounds as allowing Zimmerman to defend himself as he initiated the situation.

It is this last part in bold, when separated, regardless of what happened (punches or anything else) that should have stripped Zimmerman from claiming stand your ground. The jury was not allowed to hear about that section of the law.


#23    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,609 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Location:Currently entering

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.

Posted 15 July 2013 - 07:57 PM

View PostWickian, on 15 July 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:

You do know Zimmerman isn't white right?

He is still part of white culture.

According to his "cousin" who claims that Zimmerman sexually abused her, she also claimed that Zimmerman's immediate family hated black people, always talked bad about them, and only liked them if they "acted white".

She stepped forward to offer evidence to the state prosecutor's office because she felt Zimmerman did in fact do this over ethnicity, that he killed someone for that. This was not allowed in court but it was still part of the case and she is considered a witness in the case but not a witness in the trial.


#24    Heru

Heru

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 828 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2005

Posted 15 July 2013 - 07:57 PM

View Postkeithisco, on 15 July 2013 - 07:48 PM, said:

“Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose"

And this is where you are wrong, there was legitimate purpose because he was a Neighbourhood Watch officer, he had been beaten by this youth, so had every reason to believe that he was up to no good. White / Black doesnt even come into it. An angry 17 yr old old is as dangerous as anyone.

Another question: why are all the photographs of Trayvon from when he was 12 yrs old? Sympathy would be my guess!!

So he had a purpose to follow him because in the future he was beaten by him?????? Uhhhh okay.
And 4 punches and two scrapes on the back of the head isnt a beating.

And Neighborhood watch doesnt make you any different than any other citizen.  Actualy if anything should be learned from this is how not to act as a neighboorhood watch.


#25    keithisco

keithisco

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,051 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rincon de Loix, Benidorm

Posted 15 July 2013 - 07:58 PM

View PostThe world needs you, on 15 July 2013 - 07:47 PM, said:

Not even the whole of the law was allowed to be heard by the jury. They were never told that stand your ground does not apply if the defendant is the one who was the "initial aggressor" and from the looks of it a case could have been made against Zimmerman for harassment.



http://www.huffingto..._b_3596685.html

So just asking a couple of questions is now considered to be an "initial provocation of force"? You are so full of it, that would read that if Trayvon was initially physically attacked by Z then the defense falls? That I would agree with. The truth is that It was Trayvon that physically attacked Z,  not the other way around....This was accorded to in the trial.

In accordance with Florida State Laws then there is no way Z could be culpable, but certainly Trayvon was culpable in his own death. The only travesty now would be if Z was tried in a Civil Court and found guilty, that would be the greatest travesty of all...IMO


#26    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,609 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Location:Currently entering

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.

Posted 15 July 2013 - 07:59 PM

"To say this case is not about race is to ignore the elephant in the room."

—John Baez


#27    Jeremiah65

Jeremiah65

    Seeker of knowledge

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,078 posts
  • Joined:25 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The mists at the edge of your dreams...

  • "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle

Posted 15 July 2013 - 08:01 PM

OMG....I see so many that want to "justify"...one way or another.....has the word 'tragedy" just fallen on deaf ears?  This is a tragedy....look up the word....starting in Shakespearean works....a tragedy is just that and it cannot be undone

This was a tragedy....I do not wrong a man for doing what he thought he needed to do to protect his community....in one sense...we need more folks thinking this way....I do not wrong a kid for doing what kids do....challenge authority....

I will not support one side or another....both were messed up.

I cannot justify the killing....and I cannot justify the alternative.....I can say that we all....as human beings....are flawed...we make mistakes and we do dumb things....the younger you are, the more likely you are to do dumb shiz.  I like to think I would have handled this differently...but I can only assume this

I am personally appalled that this case is so hyped....worse than this happens everyday n the major cites.....Sanford is not a major city....been there....partied there....small town...small influence.....

Edited by Jeremiah65, 15 July 2013 - 08:02 PM.

"Liberty means responsibility.  That is why most men dread it."  George Bernard Shaw
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."  Thomas Jefferson

Posted Image

#28    Heru

Heru

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 828 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2005

Posted 15 July 2013 - 08:03 PM

View Postkeithisco, on 15 July 2013 - 07:58 PM, said:

So just asking a couple of questions is now considered to be an "initial provocation of force"? You are so full of it, that would read that if Trayvon was initially physically attacked by Z then the defense falls? That I would agree with. The truth is that It was Trayvon that physically attacked Z,  not the other way around....This was accorded to in the trial.

In accordance with Florida State Laws then there is no way Z could be culpable, but certainly Trayvon was culpable in his own death. The only travesty now would be if Z was tried in a Civil Court and found guilty, that would be the greatest travesty of all...IMO

He didnt ask him any questions.... you know it seems like you know very little about this cause other than one of em was black.


#29    keithisco

keithisco

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,051 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rincon de Loix, Benidorm

Posted 15 July 2013 - 08:03 PM

View PostThe world needs you, on 15 July 2013 - 07:57 PM, said:

He is still part of white culture.

According to his "cousin" who claims that Zimmerman sexually abused her, she also claimed that Zimmerman's immediate family hated black people, always talked bad about them, and only liked them if they "acted white".

She stepped forward to offer evidence to the state prosecutor's office because she felt Zimmerman did in fact do this over ethnicity, that he killed someone for that. This was not allowed in court but it was still part of the case and she is considered a witness in the case but not a witness in the trial.

Where the heck do you get that from??? I thought you people referred to them as "Wetbacks". And now you are bringing in "evidence" that never appeared in the trial...Unbelievable!!


#30    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,609 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Location:Currently entering

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.

Posted 15 July 2013 - 08:05 PM

This is from Zimmerman's brother and shows the racial bias that is part of their family's mindset.

Posted Image





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users